https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-administration-cdc-banned-words_us_5a348ed2e4b0ff955ad3221d
Um hhhmmmm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, it's like this. We have influential groups that have worked long and hard to make certain sciency words sound all scary. Now they are asking sciency people to please not use those words, because they frighten some of their followers.
That is...
Crimespeak doubleplus ungoodful. Doublethink goodspeak doubleplus goodful.
Whats next? Burning books?
We are obviously figments of our own imagination. Foetuses are also imaginary. Babies are delivered by storks.
2+2=5
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's a technique formalized and polished by a fellow named Frank Luntz, to deliberately control the debate over issues in such a way as to inhibit thoughts that might interfere with the message.
http://www.businessinsider.com/political-language-rhetoric-framing-messaging-lakoff-luntz-2017-8
This may be the first modern application of semiotics theory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics) to mass communications for political purposes.
It's been polished quite a bit since then, and has greatly influenced debate and led to the huge political schism we currently live with.
The application of the techniques to the public perception of the transgender community is relatively new. We've seen the 'transgender debate' focused on the Great Bathroom Debate of 2017, but the semiotic well poisoning extends well beyond that, and has been applied to feminist theory to rekindle oppositional feminism and its implications to isolate and divide marginalized communities, particularly within the LGBT communities.
The presence of this is unfortunately everywhere now, even influencing discussions within our little community. :(
This seems to be seriously misreported and taken out of context. It pertains solely to the CDC budget request. The CDC has not banned the word transgender, despite the inflammatory headlines. I don't know why it would be in their budget request anyway. Does anyone here feel that being transgender is a disease?
Hugs, Devlyn
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on December 16, 2017, 01:21:21 PM
This seems to be seriously misreported and taken out of context. It pertains solely to the CDC budget request. The CDC has not banned the word transgender, despite the inflammatory headlines. I don't know why it would be in their budget request anyway. Does anyone here feel that being transgender is a disease?
Hugs, Devlyn
Err.. no. If its a disease it feels pretty darn good.
Being transgender isn't a disease. Neither is being a fetus. If there are ever any diseases that transgender people or fetuses are particularly prone to, though, it would be nice if money were budgeted to research and control them.
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on December 16, 2017, 01:21:21 PM
This seems to be seriously misreported and taken out of context. It pertains solely to the CDC budget request. The CDC has not banned the word transgender, despite the inflammatory headlines. I don't know why it would be in their budget request anyway. Does anyone here feel that being transgender is a disease?
Hugs, Devlyn
Lets suppose you are scientist doing research on HIV with the CDC, now you cannot request funding to research its impact and prevention strategys in the transgender community.
I'm with Devlyn, this seems to be out of context or at least blown out of proportion for the sake of headlines. It doesn't feel like an attack per se, at least not one that has any real world impact. Regardless, it is really, really weird. They say they can use certain phrases with identical meaning in place of the "banned words", making the end result absolutely nothing.
I'd very much like to hear the other side's rationale before making a judgment here, maybe there is some insane but benign reason for it. Right now it just seems like nothing leading to nothing, and baffles me to no end.'
It reminds me of how Word 2016 yells at my word choice writing papers. (Shut up Word, If I want to be imprecise to pad my word count, that's my call!)
Quote from: Roll on December 16, 2017, 01:36:58 PM
... They say they can use certain phrases with identical meaning in place of the "banned words", making the end result absolutely nothing. ...
I'm with Michelle there. The "phrases with identical meaning" may have different psychological impact and influence whether, and how much, funding is granted to some projects.
So what now they have to refer to trans people and 'individuals suffering from gender disphoria' and futus with 'protohuman' and since based as....... Hey wait a minute this is really freaking shady. So the CDC can't ask for funding on research in trans issues? Didn't they come up with some of the statistics that show just how bad off we are compared to the rest of the population?
Here it is https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/index.html
11 million over 5years.....
As some one who spends a lot of time and effort writing being forced to use a weeker phrase to convey a meaning seriously weakens your argument.
It is thought control. Muzzling scientists is one of the first ways that totalitarian regimes control public dialogue. Here in Canada, the previous Conservative government cancelled the detailed census (don't want all those nasty facts, after all) and prohibited scientists from talking to the public.
This is a more targeted version of the same thing. If the CDC can't ask for funding for projects in those areas because they aren't allowed to use the words, then the intention is that those projects will go away. Next year's list of prohibited words will be longer as the budget requests this year will be worded creatively to work around the restrictions.
:police:
Please have the discussion without name calling and bashing. I do not want discussions that end up (or begin) as slinging mud at each other.
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on December 16, 2017, 01:21:21 PM
This seems to be seriously misreported and taken out of context. It pertains solely to the CDC budget request. The CDC has not banned the word transgender, despite the inflammatory headlines. I don't know why it would be in their budget request anyway. Does anyone here feel that being transgender is a disease?
Hugs, Devlyn
No. With all due respect, this is serious, and it's VERY serious. A principal function of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is
epidemiology - the study of how diseases develop and move through the population, and how the progress of those diseases can be interrupted or controlled.
Transgender (one of the banned words) people, due to their marginalized and stigmatized status in many parts of society, are uniquely vulnerable (another banned word) to a number of serious and sometimes fatal, health risks.
A few examples.
Transgender people, due to high levels of social stigma, are unemployed or underemployed at much higher levels than the general population. As a result, they are more likely to lack access to adequate medical consultation and treatment, rendering them more susceptible to a wide range of diseases.
Also because of this constriction of conventional employment opportunity, a statistically unusual number of transgender people are involved in the sex industry, with all of the attendant health risks that accompany that type of work. In particular, trans folks have HIV/AIDS infection rates considerably higher than the average for the general population. The numbers skyrocket when combined "intersectionally" with disparities of race or ethnicity - trans people of color are at especially high risk.
Because trans people are often socially stigmatized and may be isolated or estranged from their families of origin, trans folks may experience high levels of emotional suffering. To the extent that statistics are available, it appears that trans people face much higher levels of emotional disorders such as depression and anxiety disorders. Many trans people struggle with alcohol or drug problems.
As a result of the issues I just mentioned, trans people are disproportionately at risk for suicide - which is another issue that CDC has studied in the past. And, as many of us gathered to observe last month on Transgender Day of Remembrance, trans folks are not infrequently singled out for violent attack, up to and including homicide, by ignorant fools.
All of these factors (and these are only the ones I can recite off the top of my head - I'm sure there are a lot more that others could offer) show exactly why CDC
MUST study transgender (forbidden word) people as a uniquely vulnerable (forbidden word) population. If CDC fails to do this, it fails in its core mission as an agency.
Why is the CDC budget important? Because that's where CDC gets the money to study these issues. CDC must justify to Congress its need to study various aspects of national health policy to get the resources it needs. If CDC doesn't explain the necessity for study, Congress doesn't appropriate the funds. Then the research isn't done. Then the health problems go unaddressed. And downstream, trans people die.
To the Trump administration, it appears that trans folks are just a national embarrassment, and an unpleasant object to sweep under the carpet or back into the closet.
I can only imagine the frustration of doctors, medical researchers, and policy analysts at CDC being called into a staff meeting and told in effect "we can't submit a budget request for these activities because we're not allowed to speak of transgender (forbidden) people as a vulnerable (forbidden) population."
On a policy level, it's just too stupid.
The CDC hasn't banned anything. The thread title here is blatantly false. We do better when we don't call apples oranges. :)
Fetuses pretty much rules out this being aimed deliberately and specifically at us, doesn't it? The emotional appeal of "Oh, think about the vulnerable unborn children" is strong. Maybe it's been misused and this is an attempt to keep budgetary requests factual rather than emotional? I don't know.
But I do know when someone says the CDC banned something and the CDC has not in fact banned that thing, the story is misleading.
Hugs, Devlyn
I agree that the thread title is incorrect. The CDC is the victim of the ban, not the source of it. The news media headlines have it right. The ban is not aimed solely at us. We are merely one of the categories that the CDC will not be allowed to talk about or request funding for.
The targets are clear: the administration wants discussion of several hot-button topics to disappear. We happen to be one of those topics.
*-You are right Devlyn, Only the instructions to ban the seven words have been put forward. So far no action has been taken. But it will. But the choice of words in those instructions are suspect. Just as religious leaders calling us an abomination. So far it is just words. What happens when we are disappeared? What happens when law enforcement arrests us for gathering like the Jews, disabled, sexually diverse of Germany, we will be exterminated. How long before someone builds a comedy routine about the 7 dirty words?
Quote from: DawnOday on December 16, 2017, 04:09:52 PM
*-You are right Devlyn, Only the instructions to ban the seven words have been put forward. So far no action has been taken. But it will. But the choice of words in those instructions are suspect. Just as religious leaders calling us an abomination. So far it is just words. What happens when we are disappeared? What happens when law enforcement arrests us for gathering like the Jews, disabled, sexually diverse of Germany, we will be exterminated. How long before someone builds a comedy routine about the 7 dirty words?
DING DING DING DING DING!
Godwin's Law and Carlin in one paragraph....you win the Internet! ;D
Hugs, Devlyn
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on December 16, 2017, 04:25:14 PM
DING DING DING DING DING!
Godwin's Law and Carlin in one paragraph....you win the Internet! ;D
Hugs, Devlyn
You forgot Lenny Bruce
The ban as currently phrased forbids the use of these terms within both budget documents, and supporting documents submitted with the budget, including research abstracts and study proposals. That's a fairly significant footprint.
As far as why the CDC would be concerned with transgender persons, well, there are medical implications and impacts out there that are relevant to the transgender community. Under the CDC, for example, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention is working on ways to prevent HIV among transgender people and reduce health disparities. Transwomen have an HIV infection rate about four times higher than the general population within the USA. In a recent WHO report, there was a meta-analysis demonstrating that a transgender woman was 49 times as likely to be living with HIV [than the general population] in 15 countries in which data was looked at and analyzed. Access to care and treatment management for medical issues the transgender community is prone to have also falls under the CDC.
As with many of the things coming out of the white house, this has the feel of a dictatorial demand to it. It makes absolutely no sense and seems completely arbitrary until you factor in the extremist right wing political bias of this administration.
From Gizmodo's commentary on this subject (https://gizmodo.com/boy-i-sure-wonder-why-the-cdc-has-banned-staff-from-us-1821356437?IR=T)
Quote...
In other words, the agency charged with protecting Americans from epidemics and safeguarding the health of the public must now formally avoid saying anything even slightly politically inconvenient to Republicans if it wants funding.
...
and finish with
Quote...
Anyone paying attention to the current administration's stance on science will recall similar instances in which federal researchers worried it was going to kill off reports on climate change, or it put climate change deniers and chemical lobbyists in charge at the Environmental Protection Agency, or it tried to make the FDA's chief scientist a guy whose previous experience mostly included blogging about "race traitors." So, yeah, no word on whether the White House has requested the CDC get back into phrenology, but don't worry. There's plenty of fresh hell waiting for us in 2018.
Gizmodo, Tom McKay, December 16, 2017
Perhaps it will help to look at what the actually CDC does.
What we know
Zika virus can be passed from a pregnant woman to her fetus.
Infection during pregnancy can cause a birth defect called microcephaly and other severe fetal brain defects
https://www.cdc.gov/zika/pregnancy/index.html
National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Addressing the health needs of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) is a key part of HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB prevention. Find information and resources related to the health of LGBT individuals.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/sexual-id-orientation.htm
Transgender Persons
https://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/transgender.htm
I got a couple of the links from here.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hhs-disputes-report-banned-cdc-words-diversity-fetus/story?id=51832679
And the banned words themselves: evidence-based, science-based, entitlement, vulnerable, diversity, transgender, fetus.
Its either a deliberate push from the religious right or an effort to avoid drawing attention from it. I would not be surprised if it originated from Pence. With the other things that 45 and his administration has done to the trans population I think this is just another effort to make us disappear. What to a bunch of religious zealots care if trans people, or anyone for that matter, are dying from AIDS? Not allowing the CDC to use the word "Fetus" means other agencies likely won't be able to soon as well. What will they say? "Unborn child" is my guess, and the reason they want that is to make it easier to advance their pro-life agenda.
Separation of Church and State is eroding under this administration. How we are going to check that I don't know.
Quote from: Virginia 71 on December 16, 2017, 08:04:55 PM
Its either a deliberate push from the religious right or an effort to avoid drawing attention from it. I would not be surprised if it originated from Pence. With the other things that 45 and his administration has done to the trans population I think this is just another effort to make us disappear. What to a bunch of religious zealots care if trans people, or anyone for that matter, are dying from AIDS? Not allowing the CDC to use the word "Fetus" means other agencies likely won't be able to soon as well. What will they say? "Unborn child" is my guess, and the reason they want that is to make it easier to advance their pro-life agenda.
Separation of Church and State is eroding under this administration. How we are going to check that I don't know.
I agree. I was thinking the same thing. It sounds like something Pence and his cronies are peddling.
It's a way to delegitimize "science-based" facts in government.
"Fetus" is the scientific term for the unborn.
"Transgender" is the scientific term for those of us that don't identify with the gender we were assigned.
"Diversity" is the scientific term for differences in a population (of everything).
What purpose does it serve to eliminate these terms other than to deny they exist, especially for a government entity that should be above politics, religion, and bias and only based on scientific facts?
Let's eliminate "vulnerable" too, since no one is truly vulnerable... POC just need to work harder just like the rest of the marginalized populations.
I think the article is justly sounding the alarm... I can see no benign reason for banning any scientific terms from a budget perspective or any other documentation.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Virginia 71 on December 16, 2017, 08:04:55 PM
. . . Not allowing the CDC to use the word "Fetus" means other agencies likely won't be able to soon as well. . . .
Prophetic words, Virginia 71! Similar directives to the one at CDC are also being implemented in other Health and Human Services agencies as well.
Words banned at CDC were also banned at other HHS agencies: reportBY BROOKE SEIPEL - 12/16/17 09:49 PM EST
The Hill
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/365292-words-banned-at-cdc-were-also-banned-at-other-hhs-agencies-report
"Multiple agencies in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have reportedly been told by the Trump administration that they cannot use certain phrases in official documents.
"Officials from two HHS agencies, who asked that their names and agencies remain anonymous, told The Washington Post that they had been given a list of "forbidden" words similar to the one given to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)."
Dev, I'd you're going to call out dropping a Godwin, keep in mind that pres 44 also dropped a Godwin last week. When the most respected president in my lifetime thinks that's a line worth crossing, I'm inclined to agree.
That said, this feels more Orwellian to me. How long before "thoughtcrime" can be expected to be a reality?
This said, trust me, career scientists are pissed. Hell, I had a to the mat argument with a boss 20 years ago just because she was insisting I use passive voice in a document being written for the FDA.
The people who trump is trying to censor are the ones who give him his computers, cellphone, Twitter account, healthcare etc etc etc. This is how the occupy movement which said how people felt about Bush II becomes active resistance which is what we're seeing today.